just wanna put things in perspective

[Dizaster]

And is GOAT based on their accomplishments, where Pac's movement through the weights has earned in so much respect when comparing him to fighters of old... Or does measuring all time greats against each other more come down to their potential.. Like, "if this person would beat that person, then they should naturally be ranked higher on ATG".. Compared to "Well this person achieved more and moved up more weight classes and unified belts more, and defended belts more.... Even though if they were to meet in the ring, the guy who had more achievements would probably lose"...

In summary, which is more important and more important in measuring all time great? Achievement, or Performance? I think Floyd is ranked ATG mainly because of his outstanding skill and ability... If you were to measure him on achievement, I honestly think he could have competed at 154 and maybe even 160 against certain fighters.. Then you would be adding that wow factor of extraordinary achievement.... That's Pac's biggest plus at the moment. And also why if PBF beat's him, it doesn't completely damage his ATG status..

And with different ways to measure greatness, you will never have a clearcut winner and there will always be debate..

[TheBranMan]

I agree with you, man. ATG shouldn't just be thrown around. People need to be reminded of the past. If Pacquiao went on to beat Floyd (or vice versa) then the winner of Mosley/Berto (and I'm talking unquestionable wins, no more Marquez-like robberies) then I may even put him up in the top 20-25, if he knocked or shut them out then maybe even top 15 but top 5 is really pushing it and showing a lot of disrespect for the truely great fighters of the past.

[amat]

http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxingfor...me-greats.html

I don't really disagree with what you are saying, but at the same time it doesn't really make sense. I agree that the accomplishments of Robinson, Armstrong, Louis, etc. are not and will not be paralleled by any fighter ever again. However, it's just not fair to compare Robinson to Pacquiao or Mayweather. In today's boxing climate, Mayweather just wouldn't be able to fight that many times a year, even if by choice he wanted to. Those numbers simply can't be racked up in today's game. It's like comparing basketball pre/post 3 point line, the numbers are so skewed to the eras that they don't tell even half the truth sometimes.

It's not fair that no matter what a fighter can do today, if he fought 70 times and won 70 times, that would take Floyd how many more fights? Even if they did that, it probably still wouldn't compare to the numbers of the guys considered the greats of all time. So I just don't think that can be the sole barometer of the all time great lists.

There isn't even a lot of footage of Robinson at 147, in his prime. We've seen every second of Mayweather's pro career, basically. The eras - and the fighters - just can not be compared only by win-loss record.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

PROBLEM NO.1

With any sport, the playing field is always changing hence achievements and record go out the window. That's why i'm NOT overly in awe of the oldies.

Besides... I don't do P4P, i don't do ATG and i don't do GOAT.

PROBLEM NO.2

There WILL ALWAYS BE A NATURAL BIAS TOWARDS THE WELTERWEIGHT DIVISION.

It's the middle-ground, were speed meets power, where we're (decidedly) able to see a fighters worth in full. So in terms of P4P, the achievements and skill seem magnified, the closer to Welterweight that fighter is situated.

Which is why i look at someone like Ezzard Charles, a Light-Heavyweight, with nothing but admiration. He was 3-0 over Archie Moore and 2-0 over Charley Burley, who was ducked by just about every name worthy of mention in boxing's history including our King, Sugar Ray Robinson.

[Youngblood]

I was going to post along the lines of what amat said. Times are much different now and there is no way we can run records of the past into todays climate in a sensible manner. And I got no problem putting Pac in top 5 if he wins. Mayweather, not as sold on going that high if he wins. History is a strange thing, in that it is hard to look at when it`s being made, but better judged by time. So we got a long time to decide with any certainty.

A decade from now it`ll all be viewed quite differently.